Will *any* mobile OS emerge dominant by 2015?

Yes, some are more valuable than others, but in most businesses most of the time, it isn't logical to turn aside one set of consumers as long as you still make money off of them.

It would be an odd Fortune 1000 business, particularly, where despite being less revenue per customer, the Android crowd wasn't worth it. It's too many total people and likely to be too much total revenue. Besides, your expenses are mostly fixed (distribution isn't that big an issue for cost); so it only really will end up mattering whether the aggregate makes money.

Here's some real world experience from our mobile development that contradicts your oversimplification.

1) Costs aren't "fixed". Adding Android can more than double your development cost. 2) You connect with iOS users at significantly higher rate (8x+) than Android. So you need eight times as many Android users as iOS to "break even". (The number is probably closer to 10-12x for most industries.) 3) You ignore opportunity costs. Budgets aren't infinite, and neither are your project managers or QA groups.

I just bought an app from Disney for my daughter because we have a bit of a car ride today. Disney is a "Fortune 1000" company, yet they overwhelmingly support iOS. All the apps come to iOS, while only a handful get ported over to Android.

Btw, are you willing to acknowledge that false implicit jump you tried to make earlier. You know, the one where you tried to equate "not browsing as much" with "not needing anything more than a featurephone"?

What if all of us go in and cancel our Chase accounts and tell them we're tired of Chase supporting iSucks only! Get with the program Chase! Android IS the future!

Quote:

Hello chase, i switch from the ridiculous iphone( to much Restrictions ) to the great world of androids (fredom) we are waiting for your app

Quote:

Come on developers, Android is set to sweep iOS to the side! Why the stagnate development? You'd think with freedom from Apple's tea leaf rules that change when a draft enters the room, people would be flocking! Freedom people!

Quote:

I cannot believe that Chase is paying a "yearly fee" to support iPhone idiot appstore that need a map for that.

How about creating an app for an "Open" phone/device that has a "1 time" cost for them to create and publish Android Market apps, but they want to appeal to the iZombies with no real idea. And to mention AGAIN they are iPhoning the yearly fee to Apple's AppStore.

Now, suppose you are a business like, say, Chase Bank and you have millions of consumers. Your best consumers, all 30 per cent of them, are on Apple and the next 45 per cent are on Android.

Even if the Android crowd is half as much revenue as the Apple crowd, do you delay that half million dollar investment in Android and leave money on the table? Remember, you're trying to make money off of the total investment. You are amortizing (here) a 19 million dollar investment that is wanting both sets of customers and as soon as possible. As long as both sets make money, you want both sets. They are both big enough. You probably even think hard, if you are Chase, about doing WP7 and maybe even them on the same schedule. It's just another half million. The main problem there is that it's just a couple of per cent. If it were ten, it would probably make the cut, too.

Note that just prior to bringing up the case of Chase specifically, ZZ wrote the following:

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

Quote:

And would information about which users spent more on purchases via their devices influence you decision about which platform to release such an app for first?

In the case of a business as large and diverse as mine, not a bit.

One of the things you miss here is that the mobile app, proper, is often the least of the expenditure to start with.

Emphasis mine.

I still don't see it.

The article was posted in August 2010 - just a few months after Android actually became a viable competitor in the OS marketplace. Less than a year prior to that, Android could hardly be called present in the marketplace.

I realize that you got a very good opportunity to be clever and score a point for your team.. but I don't particularly see the point of your post. iPhone at that time had been out for a while, so it's not surprising that there was an app out for it already. Moreover, Android had basically not been on the map as little as six months before the time of that post. In fact, it was the half year prior to the posting of that article that Android's marketshare went from the 5% or so mark to dominating the landscape.

And you're pointing out that in that intervening time, Chase had basically been developing an Android app.

So what you link actually demonstrates is that as soon as Android captured a large enough marketshare to be significant, Chase released an app for it.

And this is supposed to be a rebuttal of ZZ's post.. is that correct? But from what I can see, it's a pretty poor rebuttal, because it seems to support what he's saying.

But hey. "Chase released an iPhone app before the Android app." You got your soundbyte in Score one for you. Your "team" is up by one... I guess.

Benhameen:

Any chance I'll get an acknowledgement of that fallacious leap you tried to make from "spending less tiem browsing" and "buying less apps" to "only used for MMS, Facebook, and email"?

Are you willing to acknowledge the incorrectness of that leap and retract it?

Chase had the Android app relatively recent, but the check cashing thing was an iPhone exclusive for much longer...even when Android was big.

Not to mention that Android surpassed iOS for 27% of the US market in May 2010. The article was written in August 2010. So unless it takes >1 year to port a banking app from iOS to Android, I don't know where the 5% number is coming from. Like I said, the willfully blind aren't worth my time.

Not to mention that Android surpassed iOS for 27% of the US market in May 2010. The article was written in August 2010. So unless it takes >1 year to port a banking app from iOS to Android, I don't know where the 5% number is coming from. Like I said, the willfully blind aren't worth my time.

So let's recap. You've reduced your argument now to "Chase took a few months after Android actually became a significant presence on the market to release their app for it". And you think that this is some rebuttal of ZZ's post from earlier?

If you reached any harder you might touch the moon

Between you and Benhameen's "if you don't browse as much as people do on iOS then you're only using MMS, Facebook and e-mail", I think we have a pretty clear picture of what the Apple advocacy camp looks like on the BF

(btw the 5% number comes from the 5% in the earlier post: "In fact, it was the half year prior to the posting of that article that Android's marketshare went from the 5% or so mark to dominating the landscape." As of February I think Android had about 5% of the market give or take).

It is quite clear you have attempted to portray the mobile app market as a poor place for developers hoping to make money from software to invest.

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

Moreover, "worse" is a pejorative you insist on. What's wrong with the more neutral "tough"? Lots of markets are tougher than other ones. That's just the nature of things.

You're playing word games.

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

Even successful developers, for instance, admit from time to time that they've had misses as well as hits. That's direct evidence for my point of view and by itself, anecdote notwithstanding, gets us well past "unable".

If you think the fact that some mobile apps are successful and others aren't is evidence for your position over mine, you're arguing with an absurd caricature of my position.

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

Now, there are 20 dollar ideas in the App Store, but the sheer math shows they are limited in aggregate to the point of not being worth the discussion time. It's a very small slice; math says that there cannot be enough of these to matter overall. It might have been a bigger slice; someday it may be. But, today, it simply isn't.

This line of argument makes zero sense. You say it's easier to make money at $20. You then acknowledge the App Store can support $20 pricing. And then you say apps selling at that price don't matter because most revenue is coming from apps selling at lower prices. Doesn't that demonstrate it's actually not easier to make money at $20, and your intuitions about this are simply wrong?

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

Meanwhile, in many software markets (particularly in the service industry) "the next" bit of software is nothing like that. There's essentially no risk.

You are, again, simply playing games here. You're conflating the case of a developer trying to make money from software with the case of an established company with an established non-software product making that product more easily accessible on a new platform. Of course the latter is less risky, but it's not a meaningful comparison. Very few companies are trying to decide between one of these and the other. It's not like Chase is saying "Should we write an app that lets people deposit checks into their Chase accounts, or write a game where people throw birds at things?"

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

I've already posted up evidence to Rawls (that you might have missed) that counted up job postings of these two software markets by demand for developers. It's a rough-and-ready measure, but it shows pretty clearly which market for software developers is larger. Still, I only did it once; perhaps the count is different today. Go count it up for yourself and see what you find.

I'm sure this is true, but again, I'm not sure what you think it means. Most development positions on desktop platforms have long been for internal enterprise software rather than software that gets boxed up and sold to end users. Does that mean software sold to end users isn't a meaningful measure of platform strength on the desktop?

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

The point you're making is oblique anyway. You want the Apple app universe to be more than it appears to me to be. The fact is, if the "other kind" of software delivers more economic value (highly likely) and employs more programmers (my rough-and-ready survey suggests it), then it is the more valuable.

When Apple first announced iPhone pricing, the Internet was suddenly full of articles with titles like "The most expensive cell phone ever" that added the price of the device to the full price of a two year contract — a pricing metric that had never previously been routinely applied to another other phone. It was, effectively, a new standard that was invented to make Apple's device seem outrageously expensive, and to make the users who bought it seem unreasonable.

What you're doing here feels a lot like this. For a couple of decades, a strong ecosystem of software that provided inherent value was considered to be a very significant measure of platform strength. Now, suddenly, when there's a market where Apple leads on this metric, we're seeing never-before-seen arguments about how it's not really that important after all.

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

What's more likely to be true (and true enough to possibly overwhelm your point even if true) is that people who spring for a high end phone spend more money period, because they have, on average, more disposable income. I think we both agree that many Android consumers are price sensitive. So, we have to correct any such claim for that and it will diminish it somewhat.

If we're talking about where developers should allocate resources, the fact that iOS users are more engaged and spend more money functions as a "correction" on the assumption that one should invest in Android on the basis of its higher market share. That has sort of been the point of this whole discussion. It's very hard to find metrics by which Android is "winning" except for market share.

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

But, overall, even if proved, it means less on the free side than it appears. All that means is that a savvy business is going to write such software for both platforms and make a little more per user on the Apple side. Whether or not the Android side makes it up in volume might be a case by case issue, but it seems clear enough on what I see on TV and the radio, that it sure as heck (fragmentation notwithstanding) stopping businesses from investing in both sides of it.

Sure. To some extent this does make sense with 'service' type apps, because such apps are of limited scope. If you're a bank and you've got a decent online banking app for iOS already, what else are you going to do? Write one for Android, I guess. On the other hand, if you're a game developer with a moderately successful iOS game, it will often make more sense, I think, to write another iOS game than to port your existing iOS game to Android.

Any chance I'll get an acknowledgement of that fallacious leap you tried to make from "spending less tiem browsing" and "buying less apps" to "only used for MMS, Facebook, and email"?

Are you willing to acknowledge the incorrectness of that leap and retract it?

Reply to what? The fact you don't understand the post is about trends of the Android population, and not a specific individual's usage patterns? That these trends have been discussed several times in the threads I linked to, that you clearly didn't bother to read?

You're so blinded by your own fanboyism that you can't see you're acting just like the people you're being so critical about. I've worked on multiple iOS and Android releases, and I've been sharing our experiences with the success and disappointments of these releases, particularly on ones that were cross platform.

Personally I'd love it if Android and WP7 were better platforms, because we'd sell a lot more apps.

You're so blinded by your own fanboyism that you can't see you're acting just like the people you're being so critical about. I've worked on multiple iOS and Android releases, and I've been sharing our experiences with the success and disappointments of these releases, particularly on ones that were cross platform.

But you didn't make a claim about "better platforms". You tried to extrapolate from "using the browser less" and "buying less apps" to "only using the phone for MMS, Facebook, and e-mail".

Are you standing by that extrapolation or are you prepared to back down from it?

And fanboyism? Don't make the mistake of thinking that everybody who disagrees with you is some platform partisan. I switched phones because I switched carriers, and the carrier I switched to didn't support iPhones, and I wanted to keep my smartphone (I posted about it here, too). Otherwise I would have kept my iPhone and would probably be using one right now.

I'm a huge fanboy of the money in my wallet, and my self-interest as served by the products I buy. Mobile platforms? Not so much. Companies, not so much.

(Edit: not that I don't have allegiances. But those are generally to communities I identify with. E.g. the larger community of OSS programmers and their work. I've been a fanboy of those since I was young).

Quote:

Personally I'd love it if Android and WP7 were better platforms, because we'd sell a lot more apps.

You mean better platforms, for you. I'm sorry that you're not making a lot of money on Android, but that's really not of concern to Android users. Really. I don't care, most users don't care. The platform is still extremely valuable to a lot of people (more than half the people owning smartphones, apparently).

I can understand you being a bit miffed that you can't make money off of that. But that's just your self interest. It doesn't reflect on the utility of the platform to its users. And frankly, I think they have higher priorities than how much money you can make off of them.

But you didn't make a claim about "better platforms". You tried to extrapolate from "using the browser less" and "buying less apps" to "only using the phone for MMS, Facebook, and e-mail".

Are you standing by that extrapolation or are you prepared to back down from it?

Please go read the linked threads again, as you still don't understand the discussion on context.

We're talking about smartphone owners who use their devices as "enhanced featurephones". This is a description of users, not phones. They exist on all platforms, but there is a higher ratio of them on Android than iOS. No one is claiming that all users of Android are like this.

Quote:

It doesn't reflect on the utility of the platform to its users. And frankly, I think they have higher priorities than how much money you can make off of them.

It absolutely does, because it means that developers aren't bringing apps to Android, so all Android users are being denied access to them.

But you didn't make a claim about "better platforms". You tried to extrapolate from "using the browser less" and "buying less apps" to "only using the phone for MMS, Facebook, and e-mail".

Are you standing by that extrapolation or are you prepared to back down from it?

Please go read the linked threads again, as you still don't understand the discussion on context.

We're talking about smartphone owners who use their devices as "enhanced featurephones". This is a description of users, not phones. They exist on all platforms, but there is a higher ratio of them on Android than iOS. No one is claiming that all users of Android are like this.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that when I referred to "using the browser less" that I was referring to phones. Generally users are the ones who use browsers, not phones. So yes, I was talking about users too.

The point is that if you use the browser or app functionality even a little bit, then you're no longer using the phone as an "enhanced featurephone". Somehow you seem to be suggesting that the amount of usage correlates in some direct way to that quality, but that's a ludicrous suggestion.

You're extrapolating from some aggregate data about a small total share of all browsing, to a statement about some significant number of users using their devices only as "enhanced featurephones". You're extrapolating from some aggregate number about total dollars spent on app sales, to a statement that a significant number of users use their devices only as "enhanced featurephones".

The utility of a smartphone's ability to access the web doesn't express itself in how much time you spend browsing the web. It relates to a user's ability to visit the web whenever they need to. My personal anecdote is just to demonstrate one example of that. I don't spend a lot of time on the web using my phone. But I absolutely take advantage of the fact that it's there when I need to use it.

The utility of a smartphone's ability to run apps doesn't express itself in how many expensive apps you have lying around. It relates to the user's ability to get the core set of applications that enhances his or her life in some meaningful way. That basic threshold is met largely via free apps. From all the major knowledge services, to the major communication services, to the major media services, the apps that deliver them are free.

Unless you're prepared to demonstrate that some significant number of users of Android systems use their browser so sparingly that its presence would not have mattered at all, and use so few apps that the ability to run apps wouldn't have mattered at all to them, then you have no basis on which to make your claims.

You have not done that, and yet you (and others) continue to make completely unjustified claims.

Quote:

Quote:

It doesn't reflect on the utility of the platform to its users. And frankly, I think they have higher priorities than how much money you can make off of them.

It absolutely does, because it means that developers aren't bringing apps to Android, so all Android users are being denied access to them.

Android users are being "denied access" to those applications that developer's aren't making for Android because of Android users' unwillingness to pay for them.

Am I getting that right?

Yeah, somehow I don't think the millions of people who use it are particularly concerned about this strangely self-referential disadvantage Honestly: Most people don't care.

After that first 100,000 apps that covers the baseline, the marginal utility of the next 100,000 apps is not that high. And all the baseline apps are available for both Android and iOS. And when Windows phone gains anything close to significant marketshare, those baseline apps will be on that platform as well.

That's why the oh-so-much-nicer app situation on iOS isn't really that compelling of a differentiator. Most people just don't care. iPhone has a strong marketing brand, and that's good on Apple for being able to execute it. People regard it as a premium product, and that makes them want it... but let's not kid ourselves. Most people out there aren't somehow closely evaluating the app situation. They expect that most of what they want to do will be possible on either phone, and they generally go with what they can afford/think is cool/their friends have/etc.

Unless you're prepared to demonstrate that some significant number of users of Android systems use their browser so sparingly that its presence would not have mattered at all, and use so few apps that the ability to run apps wouldn't have mattered at all to them, then you have no basis on which to make your claims.

You have not done that, and yet you (and others) continue to make completely unjustified claims.

In fact, all we can do is say with any certainty that, on average, iPhone users make and spend more money on average than Android users and ... use their phones more often.

Quote:

That's why the oh-so-much-nicer app situation on iOS isn't really that compelling of a differentiator. Most people just don't care. iPhone has a strong marketing brand, and that's good on Apple for being able to execute it. People regard it as a premium product, and that makes them want it... but let's not kid ourselves. Most people out there aren't somehow closely evaluating the app situation. They expect that most of what they want to do will be possible on either phone, and they generally go with what they can afford/think is cool/their friends have/etc.

I'm still not convinced it's "oh-so-much-nicer" in the first place. Maybe in the games arena, but otherwise there isn't a lot on the iPhone side that doesn't have a capable (and sometimes better) counterpart on the Android side of things.

Oh, and that "curated" App Store is so much better than the Wild Wild West Google Play store? Think again. This next piece is more evidence that it's not some kind of wide, glaring gap in which Apple users can feel safe and cuddly while Google Play users are playing russian roulette with every download:http://kotaku.com/5923347/why-do-so-man ... socialflow

Quote:

"People have this idea that there are 100 people in India doing app reviews," he said. "It's just people in a building at Apple, and like every other part of Apple, they can't get enough really good people. Apple will not compromise the quality of its teams to fill it in. I promise you it's a lot smaller than you imagine."

Let's be perfectly clear, here, too, so people don't go off riding that red herring into the sunset.

I'm not saying the opposite of so many claims about the above topic are true.

I'm saying it's not nearly as big an issue or wide a gap as is stated.

Unless you're prepared to demonstrate that some significant number of users of Android systems use their browser so sparingly that its presence would not have mattered at all, and use so few apps that the ability to run apps wouldn't have mattered at all to them, then you have no basis on which to make your claims.

You have not done that, and yet you (and others) continue to make completely unjustified claims.

The data shows it. You clearly don't want to hear it, and I don't really care about convincing you.

Quote:

Android users are being "denied access" to those applications that developer's aren't making for Android because of Android users' unwillingness to pay for them.

Am I getting that right?

Yeah, somehow I don't think the millions of people who use it are particularly concerned about this strangely self-referential disadvantage Honestly: Most people don't care.

Two weeks ago Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro released Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalker for iPad. Magic: The Gathering is a huge brand played by millions of people, and the app is one of the top grossing iPad apps for the month.

Yet it's not available on Android, and won't be anytime soon, if it all. There's certainly a number of their customers who are very sad and express it on FB/Twitter/forums, but reality is it just doesn't make sense to spend money on the port.

Quote:

After that first 100,000 apps that covers the baseline, the marginal utility of the next 100,000 apps is not that high. And all the baseline apps are available for both Android and iOS. And when Windows phone gains anything close to significant marketshare, those baseline apps will be on that platform as well.

Your idea of "baseline app" is interesting. What does that mean - generic fart apps? It may be a big number, but it doesn't mean titles people want. No DOTP on Android. No Mickey Mouse Clubhouse on Android - in the fact the kid's educational apps are Android are pretty pathetic.

I just bought an app from Disney for my daughter because we have a bit of a car ride today. Disney is a "Fortune 1000" company, yet they overwhelmingly support iOS. All the apps come to iOS, while only a handful get ported over to Android.

Except these all look like game apps and other similar adjunct apps.

What I don't see in there are the kinds of service apps I was talking about.

Still, well played. But, it hardly refutes the larger point. We seem again to be talking about games here.

The Chase example is the far better one for your team, but even so, the Android app still appeared.

If people were using these as "just feature phones" it never would have happened at all. It's clear that people are using them "as smart phones" in the sense of being willing to do banking. It's clear, too, that businesses are responding and reasonably promptly at that.

And, in any case, it is almost certain that the cost was nothing like "double" for Chase. What seems more likely is that the iPhone version, appearing in July 2010 was added to the existing iPhone app. That's what a link I turned up said. The Android one appeared in November, which is relatively early in Android's rise and was probably scratch written or ported around that time and appears to have much if not all of the function then on iPhone. Currently, by the way, Chase seems to support even smaller platforms like Blackberry. So, whatever the relative costs, it does seem to be getting around to platforms even smaller than Android. I'm not sure that Chase is quite the poster boy you want it to be in the end.

But, in any case, the costs were most unlikely to be "double" as you suggest might happen. It could for this or that company, but it wouldn't be common. Not for Fortune 1000 with significant services.

I would have thought, for GM, say, whose on-line presence is limited to manuals and OnStar, this would be so. Generally, though, if there is a significant service business, it's likely to be large for large companies. Enterprise computing has a way of getting big over time.

And yet, to my surprise, it appears that for GM, whose service business I would have thought was smaller than (say) Chase, and might have been a laggard, appears to have done both apps at the same time and in late 2010 at that: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/02/gm-a ... d-android/

Maybe late 2010 was some sort of tipping point as far as Android goes?

Most service businesses, especially in the Fortune 1000, have, you know, services. These exist and can have very large code bases in them. For these, I expect most will end up like my business, because the mobile piece will be comparatively small.

You might have noted that I conceded the possibility that some might not be concurrent, too. It's all a matter of a particular company's economics.

I suppose there might be other classes of businesses (say, graphic artists) whose Mac/iPhone presence is so overwhelming, there never will be an Android version for businesses that serve them (whether they are Fortune 1000 or not).

So what? It's clear enough that for lots of businesses, the Android version is there, often concurrently, but in any case, there. That means that even if these customers are worth less money, they are still worth money and they get served and reasonably promptly at that. The Chase app is likely to have a very long life; five years, maybe ten, maybe more. A couple of months delay in 2010 isn't that big a deal financially and that's ignoring where Android was during the relevant period.

And the reason that the Android side gets reasonably prompt service is likewise simple for those businesses that qualify. They have enough Android customers and as soon as there are enough consumers in Android, the app shows up in short order, because for most it won't be that large an incremental cost compared to the customer base it brings in.

I'm sure if you root around, you can find some more "counter examples" but the better ones would be where there aren't enough Android customers to justify having the app at all. There probably are a few. However, at least based on what assaults my ears on TV and radio, not very many.

Unless you're prepared to demonstrate that some significant number of users of Android systems use their browser so sparingly that its presence would not have mattered at all, and use so few apps that the ability to run apps wouldn't have mattered at all to them, then you have no basis on which to make your claims.

You have not done that, and yet you (and others) continue to make completely unjustified claims.

The data shows it. You clearly don't want to hear it, and I don't really care about convincing you.

Quote:

Android users are being "denied access" to those applications that developer's aren't making for Android because of Android users' unwillingness to pay for them.

Am I getting that right?

Yeah, somehow I don't think the millions of people who use it are particularly concerned about this strangely self-referential disadvantage Honestly: Most people don't care.

Two weeks ago Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro released Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalker for iPad. Magic: The Gathering is a huge brand played by millions of people, and the app is one of the top grossing iPad apps for the month.

Yet it's not available on Android, and won't be anytime soon, if it all. There's certainly a number of their customers who are very sad and express it on FB/Twitter/forums, but reality is it just doesn't make sense to spend money on the port.

Quote:

After that first 100,000 apps that covers the baseline, the marginal utility of the next 100,000 apps is not that high. And all the baseline apps are available for both Android and iOS. And when Windows phone gains anything close to significant marketshare, those baseline apps will be on that platform as well.

Your idea of "baseline app" is interesting. What does that mean - generic fart apps? It may be a big number, but it doesn't mean titles people want. No DOTP on Android. No Mickey Mouse Clubhouse on Android - in the fact the kid's educational apps are Android are pretty pathetic.

The data shows it. You clearly don't want to hear it, and I don't really care about convincing you.

You haven't demonstrated that at all. You can repeat "the data shows it" as much as you want. But the data doesn't actually support the claims you made. "On average browsing less" doesn't mean "a significant portion of the users don't browse at all", which is what would have to hold for your "enhanced featurephones" claim to have any support.

"On average spending less on apps" doesn't mean "a significant portion of the users don't use any apps at all", which is what would have to hold for your "enhanced featurephones" claim to have any support.

Stamping your foot up and down that it is so doesn't actually make it so

Quote:

Two weeks ago Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro released Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalker for iPad. Magic: The Gathering is a huge brand played by millions of people, and the app is one of the top grossing iPad apps for the month.

Yet it's not available on Android, and won't be anytime soon, if it all. There's certainly a number of their customers who are very sad and express it on FB/Twitter/forums, but reality is it just doesn't make sense to spend money on the port.

Wait. Your example of the kind of app that differentiates "enhanced featurephone" from "real smartphone" usage is.. "Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalker."

THIS is your example?

Quote:

Your idea of "baseline app" is interesting. What does that mean - generic fart apps?

No, my idea of a "baseline apps" fall into that elusive middle ground between "Magic: The Gathering" and "fart apps" that most of us like to call "our daily lives".

For me, the apps that get some moderate usage (from highest to lowest):1. Calendaring - I have a widget for it on my main screen (occupying most of the space on it). I use it extensively.2. Maps - I make extremely heavy use of maps as I walk a lot downtown and I tend to visit new places reasonably often.3. Mail - self explanatory.4. ColorNote - scratch notes, lock combos, that sort of miscellaneous "stuff that's easy to forget"5. Camera - not to take photos for sharing, but to remember things. Anything from whiteboard notes to the grocery list that my wife writes up (we split up at the grocery store, I take a picture of the list and we shop in parallel).6. Browser - self explanatory.7. Spotcycle - my city has a rental bike program, with bike stations dotting most of the downtown core. Spotcycle shows me where the nearest bike station is, and how many bikes are available there, as well as how many open racks there are.8. Transit Now - tells me when the next streetcar is due to arrive.9. Banking - self explanatory10. Zipcar - It's an urban car rental service. I use it occasionally.

That's the kind of thing I mean by baseline. The set of boring apps that actually enhance my life. The set of things that makes owning a smartphone worthwhile for me.

Every single one of those apps is free. Between them, they enhance my life and make things more convenient by an immeasurable amount. They save me time. They help me remember things. They make my life better.

Quote:

It may be a big number, but it doesn't mean titles people want. No DOTP on Android. No Mickey Mouse Clubhouse on Android - in the fact the kid's educational apps are Android are pretty pathetic.

Are you serious? THIS is your A-list of differentiators? I don't even...

It seems that we have a fundamental disconnect here. Most people don't care about the things you think they care about. I'm sure there are a lot of gamers and I'm guessing the situation is probably better for them on iOS.

But on average people don't really care about the things you're putting forth. At least, they don't see it as the primary value in having a smartphone.

My specific apps aside, the basics of calendaring, communication, contact management, web access, media management (videos/music/books/etc.), photos, and social.. those would be the "baseline" for most people. The rest of the commonly available utility apps round that out. For me it's the collection of "urban living" apps at the bottom that are most useful. For others I'm sure they have their set of life enhancing apps that are more relevant to their lifestyle.

Marginal utility drops off precipitously once those main needs are met. After that, other concerns start to dominate (like price and availability under the carrier they want). That's why most people end up buying Android phones. It more than meets the baseline requirements, and the rest of the way it competes on price and availability.

As can be seen, the base line support is very impressive. For once, not just Android and iPhone, but damn near anything else. To me, that's impressive on any schedule. It means there's a business case even at smaller share.

But, there's a differential, too. Apparently, there aren't enough Android tablet users to be supported in their high end "investment" app, but it is supported in the standard banking app.

Overall, this is in line with what I expect. That's a lot of support and yet, BofA seems to be able to afford it (probably because the costs are pretty incremental compared to the rest of the support).

Here's a chart of what Wells Fargo supports, functionally. It differentiates by phone type, so it's germaine to the discussion:

Son of a gun. . . it includes Android. Who'd have thunk it? Didn't they get the memo from the BF -- nobody uses these for anything but feature phones.

I dunno, maybe the iPhone one came five months ahead of the others (Palm, probably not). All I know is that they are there now. So, there's a balancing economic case for even phones will smaller market share than Android.

Apparently, there are a lot of smart phones out there being used for banking. BofA and Wells Fargo even go beyond "the big two" which is suggestive of relative costs of the sort my business "enjoys". Chase seems to be the comparative holdout here; AFAICT, it still only supports the big two.

So, it's not hard to find support for the idea that service businesses like smart phones and seem to come up with justifications to serve at least the big two and sometimes a few others.

So the big two plus Blackberry. Beyond this, I did find what appear to be some "commercials" that are packaged as apps and are iOS only. So, there do appear to be times and places where it is indeed iPhone only. The big service function, though, is pretty fully supported across platforms, which is in line with what EB and I are arguing. Still, there's a point for Rawls in there also; the ads are sometimes iPhone only.

Bank of America has a fairly decent Windows Phone app, and what's more amazing they've actually updated it over time (early versions sucked as I recall). Their mobile site is completely unusable on the WP browser.

To summarize for those who can't be arsed to read ZZ's long posts:He has now conceded that:1) were he to write mobile for-pay apps, the fact that Apple users pay more for apps would encourage him to release them for iOS first, and2) businesses with service-based apps like Chase often release these apps for iOS first and/or with greater functionality because iOS users are more lucrative.

So in the span of two pages, he has gone from calling Apple "fans" sneering elitists for holding the above positions to conceding them (in his uniquely verbose backhanded manner). I suppose that counts as progress on the Battlefront.

To summarize for those who can't be arsed to read ZZ's long posts:He has now conceded that:1) were he to write mobile for-pay apps, the fact that Apple users pay more for apps would encourage him to release them for iOS first, and2) businesses with service-based apps like Chase often release these apps for iOS first and/or with greater functionality because iOS users are more lucrative.

So in the span of two pages, he has gone from calling Apple "fans" sneering elitists for holding the above positions to conceding them (in his uniquely verbose backhanded manner). I suppose that counts as progress on the Battlefront.

Your summary forgot to mention that in the last two pages ZZ also outed himself as the velociraptor responsible for the death of President Kennedy. I can't believe you missed that part.

1) were he to write mobile for-pay apps, the fact that Apple users pay more for apps would encourage him to release them for iOS first, and

You're not paying attention. I've said this for a long while; months on now; perhaps even from the start, which is getting to be a while now. That doesn't change or undermine any of my other suggestions. There's an edge for Apple here which I have long acknowledged. It's just not as substantial as is often claimed around here.

The buck 43 is still a problem for this market. It skews things to mass market product.

I have also said, if you are paying attention, that if the buck 43 increases (freemium might do this, at least as measured by Apple or the industry), it would change the discussion. I'd love to see an updated number here; this is a place where I actually hope for some change. It might change outright by some sort of "for pay" price recovery (somewhat doubtful) or it might change because of freemium (more likely, IMO). Either way, it would change the discussion.

But, apparently, anything I say favorable to Apple, even in potential, flies right under your radar.

Quote:

2) businesses with service-based apps like Chase often release these apps for iOS first and/or with greater functionality because iOS users are more lucrative.

That was also part of my original argument, but you didn't read it closely enough because I considered it a minority case. If the mobile part is a substantial fraction of the cost (as it may well be for my Chase check cashing app; US Bank also lagged a bit in its case of the same function), then, sure, one goes after the customers with more disposable income first.

Yet, it is certainly possible to discover cases (even unexpected ones like GM) where it came out exactly as it did in my company.

But, even when the Android app lags, for any reason, it doesn't seem to lag very far. I'm hard pressed to find too many cases (some of the Ford "ad" type apps was the best I could find stabbing around) where a service-backed offering wasn't both iOS and Android. And even in the Ford case, I wonder if there is much "service" at the back of a virtual test drive.

And, what, exactly, am I "sneering" at here anyway?

Apparently, you are one of those that if one doesn't completely and utterly "cheerlead" for Apple, one is predicting its demise. I do nothing of the sort; I'm looking for some balance.

In particular, until I spoke up nobody was even looking at apps of this class at all. I've spoken about this for some time, too; lately, I've improved the arguments for it and now folks are actually engaging on it. To the extent the free market was discussed, before I did this, it was all about ad supported games. Yet, when I look around, even casually, I find lots of apps of the sort I am interested in. But, as far as the BF then went, they didn't exist.

And, when you look at that market, not only do you find that Android comes out well, you even find that minority platforms like Blackberry are doing better than might be expected. I would not have predicted so many going beyond the big two in mid 2012 on any schedule. But, so it proves. That means that even if Apple is favored a bit here and there, and even more often than I expected, it's "ascendency" is generally brief. Businesses apparently do want all of their customers "fed" to their service offerings; more so than I had even argued overall when you toss in the Blackberry cases that poking around reveals.

We're now down to arguing the sequence of it, which seems to be mostly measured in months if there is a lag at all. For these apps, likely to be long lived, that's a point, but not that substantial a point. It certainly isn't one that is going to move the market. People look around, they by and large see the Android version of service apps. They might miss a few Disney games (which aren't service apps anyway) and a few Ford test drives (probably ditto), but they do get to scan their checks with even a cheap Android phone, provided it has a camera. The latter would appear to me far and away more significant.

And, while it is difficult, you can also find some evidence (such as my employment survey, the low overall participation in the software industry expenditures) that the "for pay" world just isn't that big compared to the rest of the industry and, probably, to this form of "free" app as well.

And, why wouldn't service apps for mobile be large? It is connected to the larger economy; the service economy for certain. Moreover, more business models are possible here. It can be tied to some enterprise company; it can be a business like Guidebook that provides a generic service to smaller companies. That's a pretty big world to shoot at and many of these do not require mass market acceptance, either. Some of them, especially on the enterprise side of it, are essentially risk free. There is no waiting for the verdict of the public as in the "for pay" side; you give them away and people tend to use them. Apparently, even on Blackberry.

So in the span of two pages, he has gone from calling Apple "fans" sneering elitists for holding the above positions to conceding them (in his uniquely verbose backhanded manner). I suppose that counts as progress on the Battlefront.

The thread has really been lost here, however. The larger context of this argument is what metrics should be used to determine relative platform success. The whole "paid apps don't really matter because of [various evolving reasons]" argument was attempting to make a case against treating app store revenue as a more significant metric than market share. This argument has largely fallen flat on its face, though no doubt we'll see ZZ pushing it again soon enough, using the "buck an app" and "hitmaker's market" language again as if it has never been contested.

So in the span of two pages, he has gone from calling Apple "fans" sneering elitists for holding the above positions to conceding them (in his uniquely verbose backhanded manner). I suppose that counts as progress on the Battlefront.

The thread has really been lost here, however. The larger context of this argument is what metrics should be used to determine relative platform success. The whole "paid apps don't really matter because of [various evolving reasons]" argument was attempting to make a case against treating app store revenue as a more significant metric than market share. This argument has largely fallen flat on its face, though no doubt we'll see ZZ pushing it again soon enough, using the "buck an app" and "hitmaker's market" language again as if it has never been contested.

Oh that particular undead ZZ argument will no doubt come shambling round yet again (I give it 3 pages) given you yet another opportunity to beat it down. Frankly, I lack your stamina.

So in the span of two pages, he has gone from calling Apple "fans" sneering elitists for holding the above positions to conceding them (in his uniquely verbose backhanded manner). I suppose that counts as progress on the Battlefront.

The thread has really been lost here, however. The larger context of this argument is what metrics should be used to determine relative platform success. The whole "paid apps don't really matter because of [various evolving reasons]"

What an interesting way to restate the "oh, installed base and marketshare doesn't really matter because [various evolving reasons]"

where [various evolving reasons] circulate between:"But iOS users browse more and therefore Android users are just using their pones as enhanced featurephones so it doesn't count!""But iOS users pay more for apps and therefor Android users are just using their phones as enhanced featurephones so it doesn't count!""But Android just got there by copying iOS so it doesn't count!""People are just buying Android phones phones by default not because they're consciously choosing them over iPhones so it doesn't count!""But developers make more money off of iOS users so really it's iOS that won!""But Apple makes the most profits on smartphones so really it's Apple that won!"

It started off with the assertion that Android would go nowhere in marketshare. Instead it saw a meteoric rise, and it now is the dominant smartphone OS. After that happened, the people who for some reason are compelled to view every event as inherently reflective of Apple's place in the world, those people retreated to the above rallying cries.

In the meantime, those of us who don't tie up our personal identity with the products we use pointed out repeatedly that:a) Apps for smartphones aren't that hard to develop, and the important ones for users are generally access points to services, which will end up showing up on most platforms just about the same.b) If that threshold is met then users will naturally focus on other priorities (such as price, carrier availability, etc.) when making their phone purchasec) Given that Apple tends to focus a bit more on premium products and that Android would saturate the low-end, that they would win out in adoption.

ZZ claims he pointed this out. I know I said this repeatedly (paraphrased): Being the best by some technical metric doesn't matter.. you just need to be "good enough" and cheaper than the competition to take the bulk of the market. I also said at that time that Apple would not suffer by this, and that they would continue to enjoy significant benefits from their premium products and first-mover advantage, and that this was their preferred market - that they were not interested in going after the low end.

All of that turned out to be accurate.

These kinds of predictions didn't require some genius level of analytics - just a basic level of detachment from the issue so as to not allow personal identity issues to cloud the judgement of where the market would go and why it would go there.

The sad thing is that none of these claims are an attack on Apple. The only way they could be construed as attacks on Apple is from the perspective of extreme fanatics for whom anything less than constant, mindless adulation constitutes an attack. Unfortunately, these extremists seem to be dominating the rhetoric coming from the "pro-Apple" side of the camp on the BF these days, and completely poisoning any possibility of a real discussion. I'm sure that there are a lot of more reasonable, moderate people who could make balanced positive assessments about Apple's position are being drowned out by these blowhards whose only interest in in somehow shouting down or suppressing anything that they feel may be a hint of a threat against the mothership.

The whole "paid apps don't really matter because of [various evolving reasons]" argument was attempting to make a case against treating app store revenue as a more significant metric than market share. This argument has largely fallen flat on its face, though no doubt we'll see ZZ pushing it again soon enough, using the "buck an app" and "hitmaker's market" language again as if it has never been contested.

You have "contested" it largely by assertion.

I challenge you outright.

Publish a distribution, any distribution, where the average retail price is a buck 43 and where buck-an-app is not dominant.

You've never really done the math, have you?

Even static lists (which do not correct for volume) show that the one and two dollar apps predominate.

What an interesting way to restate the "oh, installed base and marketshare doesn't really matter because [various evolving reasons]"

where [various evolving reasons] circulate between:"But iOS users browse more and therefore Android users are just using their pones as enhanced featurephones so it doesn't count!""But iOS users pay more for apps and therefor Android users are just using their phones as enhanced featurephones so it doesn't count!""But Android just got there by copying iOS so it doesn't count!""People are just buying Android phones phones by default not because they're consciously choosing them over iPhones so it doesn't count!""But developers make more money off of iOS users so really it's iOS that won!""But Apple makes the most profits on smartphones so really it's Apple that won!"

Most of those are the same argument — that Android users seem less engaged, on average, and that that reduced engagement, as far as anyone has been able to quantify it, seems to prevent Android's larger market share from translating into better performance on metrics of direct value to users and developers, like a stronger ecosystem for apps and content. The argument for reduced engagement seems relatively robust, showing up in everything from app sales figures to web browsing stats to propensity of users to configure their devices on home WiFi networks, and shouldn't be especially surprising to anyone given the lower average cost of Android handsets and Android's emergence as a 'default' option.

The "profits" argument is slightly different, instead making the point that Android market share does not seem to translate reliably into better performance on metrics of direct value to the platform vendor.

This thread is about mobile OS dominance, not mobile OS popularity. Android fans want to pretend they're the same thing, logic which would lead one to conclude that e.g. India, because of its larger population, is a more dominant world power than the Untied States. Most of the rest of your post seems to be an elaborate ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to reject that view.

Publish a distribution, any distribution, where the average retail price is a buck 43 and where buck-an-app is not dominant.

The "challenge" is irrelevant. I have not claimed that most revenue is not derived from low-cost apps. I have claimed this does not have the implications you want people to believe it does.

I believe the low per-unit pricing that you perceive as being detrimental is actually a consequence of a) the app store model allowing developers to tap into a large pool of revenue that was previously being left on the table because it wasn't practical to sell small, simple apps at low prices and b) the app store model lowering the optimum price of apps of more traditional scope by increasing discoverability and reducing friction for purchasers, thus tilting the market more in favor of volume.

Neither of these is detrimental to developers or users. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Most of those are the same argument — that Android users seem less engaged, on average, and that that reduced engagement, as far as anyone has been able to quantify it, seems to prevent Android's larger market share from translating into better performance on metrics of direct value to users and developers.

The metric of direct value of the platform to users is pretty clear: more users find Android phones to be valuable enough to buy them.

Direct value to users has clearly and openly been taken by Android. This was achieved largely on price and availability of devices. There's no reason you have to take this as a "loss" for Apple, though. Why would you? Apple is doing fine.

Direct value to developers, you have more claim to. But that's a bit tangential to it. The value of smartphones to users is seems to largely be satisfied by Android. That those masses of users aren't willing to support developers to the extent that you think they should is neither here nor there. App developers are not owed support. There isn't some natural level of app usage or amount-of-time-spent-browsing (as set by iOS users) that reflects on the utility of smartphones. Repeatedly asserting so doesn't make it true.

And as I have pointed out, the baseline utility of smartphones is easily achieved by free apps available on both platforms. That's not a property of the Android market, it's a property of the smartphone market. The additional fact that iOS users are inclined to spend above and beyond that to some degree is great for those developers, but doesn't reflect on the utility of the devices for users.

Users have spoken. They care more about price and availability than the various different app and ecosystem metrics that you think they should care about more. But they don't. Don't hold that against the users. It's just the way it is.

No amount of misdirection gets around that fact.

Quote:

Most of the rest of your post seems to be an elaborate ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to reject that view.

It's an accurate assessment of what Apple advocacy on the BF has become. A "with us or against us" cabal of fanatics that does little more than sports-team cheering and jeering.

I enjoy Apple products. I use them, and I pay for them. But since I'm not a fanatic, I'm deemed to be biased against them.

The metric of direct value of the platform to users is pretty clear: more users find Android phones to be valuable enough to buy them.

You're just playing word games here. The question under examination is whether Android's larger market share translates into superior outcomes for users and/or developers. You're trying to claim Android's larger market share as a superior outcome for users in itself.

EgalitarianBovine wrote:

That those masses of users aren't willing to support developers to the extent that you think they should is neither here nor there. App developers are not owed support. There isn't some natural level of app usage or amount-of-time-spent-browsing (as set by iOS users) that reflects on the utility of smartphones. Repeatedly asserting so doesn't make it true.

I'm not sure I've ever asserted such a thing.

EgalitarianBovine wrote:

And as I have pointed out, the baseline utility of smartphones is easily achieved by free apps available on both platforms. That's not a property of the Android market, it's a property of the smartphone market. The additional fact that iOS users are inclined to spend above and beyond that to some degree is great for those developers, but doesn't reflect on the utility of the devices for users.

This claim is utterly ridiculous. Users spending money on apps are clearly doing so to increase the utility of the device. The default presumption must be that a device that offers more apps on which users are willing to spend money is providing more utility.

This thread is about mobile OS dominance, not mobile OS popularity. Android fans want to pretend they're the same thing, logic which would lead one to conclude that e.g. India, because of its larger population, is a more dominant world power than the Untied States. Most of the rest of your post seems to be an elaborate ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to reject that view.

Dominance and popularity are inextricably linked. We're talking about products in the marketplace, not countries on a map. Perhaps we can somehow agree on a measure other than sheer popularity, but there is no measure worth a damn that doesn't require significant popularity to make any sense whatever.

iOS at 10 per cent would be about as "dominant" as OS X is. Which is to say, not.

Or, do you seriously want to have arguments that Windows Phone is dominant at 3 per cent?

The "challenge" is irrelevant. I have not claimed that most revenue is not derived from low-cost apps. I have claimed this does not have the implications you want people to believe it does.

That's because you refuse to do the math.

Really, ZnU, do the math. It has clear implications.

For instance, if we assume buck apps are half the market (they can hardly be less than that), then on the 4 billion a year the market now seems to be throwing off that is, by definition two billion dollars a year.

If we set everything else aside, that's a large, respectable hitmaker's market that functions exactly as I say it does.

But, the buck 43 says more; it says that 10 buck apps are actually (on any plausible distribution) a not-very-large segment of the market. Heck, it isn't all that large if you throw reality aside and pretend there are only two prices; 10 bucks and 1 buck.

In reality it might be perhaps three per cent; perhaps five. Well, five per cent of four billion is still a lot of money. About 200 million a year. But that 200 million is carved up by everyone who has those 10 dollar apps. And, it is hardly implausible that expenses run at 500 thousand a year for that hypothetical "professional" firm of yours you like to talk about. Programmers cost (salary, benefits, PCs, office space). So, they have to have 50,000 sales a year just to break even at 10 bucks. That's not so easy, but it is at least easier than 500,000. So, if it is divided evenly (which, of course, it is not), there just isn't room for all that many products, much less companies at this level. An even-steven division says 400 products, presumably with some turnover. However, it is likely to be far less than this simply because a few fortunate firms will really sell, even at the 10 buck level. But, again, the math constrains; every one of those means a smaller pie for the rest and it's a smaller pie to start with.

On the larger end of things, we're now describing a pretty small piece of a 300 billion dollar annual pie. It's very important and significant if you happen to be one of these successful firms. Overall? Not all that interesting. The majority of the market is somewhere else even in the App Store, never mind overall.

These sorts of considerations reveal your arguments as far more Lake Woebegone than you seem to think.

Moreover, to the extent I've seen them, the static breakdown seems to show a lot more ten dollar apps than are likely to be actually selling. It could actually be that your "professionals" are doing more on my hitmaker side than your 10 dollar side, because the static count is skewed upmarket from sales reality. Moonlighters are more likely to be unrealistic about price.

All the way around then, you want to run away and hide from buck-an-app. But, there's no place to hide. Not, at any rate, until the average retail (including freemium) rises a bit; about 2.50 would be enough to make my arguments look a lot more like yours.

Show me that average and my argument changes because the underlying marketplace changes.

Quote:

Neither of these is detrimental to developers or users. Quite the opposite, in fact

It helps if your idea has an upside of a half million consumers a year to cover the expenses-and-profit of your hypothetical small firm. And, it is certainly true that there are ideas that, absent the App Store, never would have happened. That's great as far as it goes. But, what if your ideas does not have such an upside? Then the App Store doesn't matter, doesn't help or doesn't help often enough. And, that's a lot of ideas given the empirical results to date.

But, your version is Lake Woebegone thinking again. The overall math remains very harsh. If mass market success was as easy as you seem to think it is, we'd have a lot more hit songs, a lot more best selling books, and a lot more than 1.3 per cent of the software investment in this market.

As far as platform dominance goes, it's a point, but only a point. It's not the sun, moon, and stars. I wouldn't rate it at present as something I'd call remotely decisive. Now, jack up the revenue to 20 or 30 billion a year or even jack up the average app revenue to something more like 2.50 and we can begin to chat about something more substantial. We're not there yet on either front.

Quote:

b) the app store model lowering the optimum price of apps of more traditional scope by increasing discoverability and reducing friction for purchasers, thus tilting the market more in favor of volume.

So, it is a hitmaker's market then? Or, is there some secret stash of cheap programmers that I haven't heard of?

"Tilting the market more in favor of volume" is, on any reasonable reading, a confession at last that you agree this is a mass market dominated enterprise (by the way, it need not be; this is IMO an empirical fact; here, you seem to be harder over on my arguments than I am).

Now, in any event, how is that not a hitmaker's market if you need (for a hypothetical small firm of professionals) a 500,000 sales volume per year to have a business? You really think those kind of ideas grow on trees?